I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#61
(06-07-2019, 02:56 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: Once more unless you are willing to understand a difference between Uniformitarianism and uniformity of nature, than we are talking past each other. I agree with uniformity of nature, not Uniformitarianism. Here would be a great book if you are interested. 

I'm not looking to buy books just to engage in an online discussion, but I am happy to discuss the point.

Since you've read the book and assert there is something different between "uniformitarianism" and "unity of nature" how about defining each as you understand them and then perhaps we can address the matter.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: As for dating methods and the false assumptions see my first posts under Deep Time the Creator God of the evolutionist.

I haven't discussed dating methods here. I can if you want.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: So you said "no Catholic or Protestant before the 19th century ever held this passage to condemn Uniformitarianism."  Maybe if that is true its because that was not made popular or believed untill Darwin/Lyell.  

The Greeks long ago asserted an eternal universe, and this would be a perfect passing against them. Aristotle and Plato also both asserted an eternal universe and both were highly influential on Christian philosophy. Plato first, then Aristotle.

Seeing as St Thomas Aquinas asserts that the only we we know that there was a beginning to the universe is by revelation, if 2 Pt 3 means we must reject the permanent uniformity of natural laws since Creation, then it escaped the greatest theologians and philosophers of Christendom, all of whom would have had reason to use it against the eternity of the universe.

So, no, it didn't start with Lyell or Darwin. In fact Darwin stole his idea from the ancient Greeks, mostly from Anaxamander.

The first to interpret this passage as in the fundamentalist Protestant manner, from my reading, is George McGready Price, the self-styled "Geologist" who was a devotee of an Adventist prophetess who claimed to have seen the Creation in a series of visions. He developed the his "flood geology" as a shortcut to attack Darwin.

The general Catholic attitude at the time was pretty much indifferent to the timing of Creation, as can be seen from the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission decree, which said that Genesis 1 could be interpreted as literal days or as indefinite periods safely. That decree was under the most solidly anti-liberal anti-Modernist Pope the Church has had, St Pius X.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: I mention the flood because the passage mentions the flood.  

It does, but that does not really play into the discussion unless you are going to assert that the natural and physical laws of the universe changed as a result of the Flood.

Is that what you assert.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: You have a solid misunderstanding of the young earth position. I recommend you read up first from creationist rather than those who disagree with them. Here are some major creation organizations.

I've read most of it, because I used to not only accept it, but teach it. It was in continuing to study Creationism in order to perfect my arguments against those who asserted an Old Earth, that I found lots of contradictions and looked at the claims of the Old Earth side who also rejected Evolution (at least a random changes that excluded an Intelligence directing them).

The more I tried to perfect my case for Creationism, the worse it got, until I finally read up on what the Church actually taught and did some seminary studies in Scripture and Philosophy. Before that I had obtained a degree in Chemistry and in Physics and worked doing university-level research, so I'm quite familiar with both the Scriptural studies and the Science. It's be an interest of mine for a long time, and no, I don't think I've misunderstood the Young Earth position.

If you think I have, however, instead of just randomly pointing me to full websites, why don't point out the problems with what I have written? Usually that's how discussion forums work.



Thats sounds great, but if I am not mistaken I tried, and you ignored and went on with what your article said. Uniformity of nature is everything you have exspalined and we all agree with. Uniformitarianism [not biblical and refuted by science]  is- this from from wiki a liberal/evolutionist site 


In geology, uniformitarianism has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and that geological events occur at the same rate now as they have always done, though many modern geologists no longer hold to a strict gradualism.[6] Coined by William Whewell, it was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism[7] by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton in his many books including Theory of the Earth.[8] Hutton's work was later refined by scientist John Playfair and popularised by geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[9] Today, Earth's history is considered to have been a slow, gradual process, punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events.







Your more than welcome to but you have claimed they show an old earth without realizing the Uniformitarianism false assumptions you make when you make such claims. I have spoken on the dating methods and I suggest your read my post on them. It gets into Uniformitarianism of course. 





You said "if 2 Pt 3 means we must reject the permanent uniformity of natural laws since Creation, then it escaped the greatest theologians and philosophers of Christendom, all of whom would have had reason to use it against the eternity of the universe." 

It is highly frustrating and i apologize when someone is unwilling to accept a clear distinction between uniformity of nature, and  Uniformitarianism. That is why I said it is pointless to continue a talk while you refuse to see  the difference. You might think we are discussing but really it cant get off the ground until you do. God invented the global flood and it was believed by the fathers as was a recent creation until the rise of Uniformitarianism and evolution. I have linked many articles for this so I wont anymore. 





You said "It does, but that does not really play into the discussion unless you are going to assert that the natural and physical laws of the universe changed as a result of the Flood.


Is that what you assert."


I am unsure if you have never disused with a creationist but a very basic understanding of our position would help. I must say it once more. It is highly frustrating and i apologize but when someone is unwilling to accept a clear distinction between uniformity of nature, and  Uniformitarianism. That is why I said it is pointless to continue a talk while you refuse to see  the difference. You might think we are discussing but really it cant get off the ground until you do



You claimed "I've read most of it, because I used to not only accept it, but teach it. It was in continuing to study Creationism in order to perfect my arguments against those who asserted an Old Earth, that I found lots of contradictions and looked at the claims of the Old Earth side who also rejected Evolution (at least a random changes that excluded an Intelligence directing them)"


So that makes me wonder, why do you seem to not understand the creation position at the most basic levels? What creationist have you been reading [or claimed to have read] and could you give me the scientific case for creation in short. I would also disagree with your creationism, it is not the creation of the bible or science. 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by Tolkien RRJ - 06-07-2019, 06:13 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)